How can ' terrorism' be effectively checked if the developed world has double standards in itself?

Jan 7 2013:
Dear Mr.Mark Meijer,
Pardon me to say that a nation,a politician,a society or a government represents us the people at the macro level.This too is a fact of life that people do differ from each other in a shades of life.I do not agree with the proposition that it is we who practice double standards.It may be possible at the micro level among individuals but here i mean that the representative Governments in Europe and today's America are practicing double standards against the third world countries or developing nations of lesser economies whatever you may like to term them.Did the Vietnam war or other such wars of USA had the popular will of the people of that country.Certainly not.Though the govt.of that time in USA was a democratically elected govt.yet it was fought in the name of the people of USA,for the propaganda only.There was certainly a great difference of opinion back home in public in USA against the govt.of USA.
It is presumed that a democratically elected governments shall reflect the popular will of the people but the practice is quite contrary and the general public including those who did not vote for that govt.are kept hostage to that govt.'s actions.Life is not just the idea,one has to live it in consonance with the Religious dictates very faithfully or in case of a non believer in conjunction with the settled principals of that society or nation whatever you may term it.Such a set of rules,(if you like) keeps the individual stick to some code of life and behavior.
My point is that left it to general public life may become comparatively easier in qualitative terms.But the politicians,the political parties and the vested interests like the Feudal and the so called entrepreneurial classes keep their agenda above the popular interest of populace at large and manipulate their governments to act upon an agenda that suits them alone.There are governments which dance to their tune(its an everyday scene ).Did Hitler get any public opinion before going to

Jan 6 2013:
thank you for participation.See that violence begets violence as it is vice too.The countries,nations or communities threaten each other politically,religiously or hegemonic ally.The phenomena is like the famous saying of Chinese leader MAO TSE TUNG "We are the advocates of abolition of war we do not want war ,but in order to get rid of the guns,we have to take up the guns". Every one on the globe is taught like you mentioned but yet we see violence being spread all around under the active patronage of politicians,Governments,Clergy,religious stalwarts,unfortunately.They put off the sane slogan of non-violence just because they have a sort of scientific or technological edge over the others.Killing for them is no issue,since it quenches their thirst for being powerful.In theory they uphold Human rights,mutual co-existence etc.but there is always a contradiction in their beliefs and the practice.The tendency to grab the resources by some against some is never resolved to this day,hence the issues over the globe are becoming grave,tedious and intricate with every passing day.Every society,group or nation has a fundamental right to govern itself under its own norms to the extent that it does not dehumanize its subjects,citizens or the community.Outside interference is seldom required.Mutual co-operation however is always a good think to share for the benefit of both or all on the globe.But it is easy said than done.That is how it is usually said that man was born free but he is everywhere in chains on the planet earth.The comity of nations need badly to co-exist to achieve peace .

Jan 5 2013:
The USA is and was the worlds leading vender in weapons. These weapons are used globally to wage war on countries and within countries on their own people as well as by splintered terrorist groups to wage war on anyone. In this way the United States has been a facilitator of world terror for as much as a century(that is since WWI where the first great war profiteering by the us occurred) and the US is not the only global power that has been and is guilty of this behavior, the former soviet union and the Chinese come to mind as does the states that support the Hezbollah and other groups. So long as the USA and other 1st world nation use and supply these weapons on and to the 2nd and 3rd world, there is no way or reason that these terrorist groups will stop. Terrorism is the creation and use of fear as a political tool, that certainly applies to the saber rattling and police actions taken by the USA and to the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, as much as to a car bombing or a suicide bombing or missile attacks by Hezbollah, or bombings in Afghanistan by the USAF or the attack by Israeli tanks into the Gaza strip. We must apply an international standard of behavior that punishes the use of violence to advance political ends whoever the aggressor is. Lets look to the world court or to UN as our judicial body.

Jan 2 2013:
I'm not sure the developed world has double standards. Here in the U.S. we also have "homegrown" terrorists, American citizens born in the U.S. who practice terrorism against their fellow Americans.

Jan 2 2013:
Governments have no real interest in ending terrorism - being such well-studied practitioners of the art themselves.

Terrorism is very PROFITABLE. Governments don't want to end terrorism. They want to end perceived threats against them and will use terrorism to drive that point home. They will use terrorism on their enemies and their own citizens.

"1984" is certainly upon us. What a dystopia we live in - calling war, "peace", ignorance, "power", and slavery, "freedom". That is all due to terrorism of our government against its own people.

Jan 5 2013:
: Terrorism is available to states as well as non state organizations or individuals. Why would Terrorism not apply to an action (say the bombing of a building) just because it was done by a USAF plane instead of a United Airlines one?

Jan 2 2013:
The root of terrorism is terror. It is a term used by governments to instill fear into the populace.

The battle is between groups of people who seek power over other people. Neither group is interested in having people understand the truth, and both groups justify and describe the battle with lies. It is certainly possible that the cause of one group is somewhat morally superior to the cause of the other group. In my estimation, the individuals involved act with no concern for morals. None of the people engaged in this battle are really seeking peace. The road to peace is through justice, and the warmongers seek power, not justice.

'Terrorism' will be 'checked' by victory. One side or the other will give up, and both sides will claim victory. Judging from the rate of progress throughout the last few decades, victory will not occur in this century.

Jan 5 2013:
: Terrorism is available to states as well as non state organizations or individuals. Why would Terrorism not apply to an action (say the bombing of a building) just because it was done by a USAF plane instead of a United Airlines one? i copy you this reply because it applies to your comment as well.

Jan 7 2013:
war.See how much had it shaken the world and mankind.Did US govt.assess that the nuclear holocaust in Japan has the express or implied consent of Americans while dropping a nuclear bomb at Hiroshima.
I WANT TO BRING HOME A POINT THAT OUR GOVT. IN THIS PLANET ARE NOT TRULY REPRESENTATIVE IN STRICT SENSE OF THE WORD.THEY DO NOT BOTHER ABOUT THEIR ELECTORATES WILL AND DIVIDE THE WORLD AS THEY PLEASE THROUGH A COTERIE OF THEIR ADVISERS ETC.THEY MANAGE THEIR PUBLIC WHICH IN BROADER SENSE IS NOT THAT HOSTILE TO EACH OTHER.
iF PEOPLE ARE TO BE CONSULTED BEFORE EVERY SIGNIFICANT STEP UNDERTAKEN BY ITS GOVERNMENTS( LIKE REFERENDUMS) THEN THINGS ON THE EARTH CAN BE BETTER.
i WILL PROPOSE YOU TO THINK IT OVER AGAIN.tHE GOVERNMENTS WERE THOUGHT OF TO HELP STEER THEIR PEOPLE IN A BETTER WAY AND NOT FOR CREATING AN UN IMAGINABLE DIVIDE BETWEEN THEM AS IS A EVERYDAY SHOW IN THE WORLD AFFAIRS THESE DAYS.
ITS PROPER FOR YOU TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEMS THAN TO GIVE A SHUT UP CALL.HAVE A HEART.

Jan 5 2013:
Thank you for the opinion. I wish that we could get a broader support of the idea that violence and the threat of violence is not acceptable. Its just the first lesson that we are supposed to learn in kindergarden

Comment deleted

Jan 5 2013:
I can understand your comment and this exactly is the problem with such topics.If you live in the so called developed world,then your reaction is normal as you are given such a sugar coated pill of news the whole day long that you are brain washed and gradually tend to have the same belief which your media wants you to believe.There is a lot of the vast world which is suffering at the hands of single policeman of the world today being it the so called "unipolar world"she feeds both the perpetrator of terrorism and also support the counter- terrorism as a face saving in the so called comity of nations.Who was in veitnam,who attacked its own progeny in Iraq,who took revenge from Qaddafi.
Yet you say pseudo.I pity your state of mind.

Jan 5 2013:
You assume too much, you also over generalize and simplifly, maybe that is why you reason that way. I grew up in the under developed world and had my fair share of exposure to third world problems. Unlike you I tend to place blame of the world's problems on multiple countries and factors, not on a single country. I make it a point to get my information from as many sources as possible from the most liberal to the most conservative to make up my mind, so don't accuse me of being brainwashed when you seem to repeat the same one sided argument.

Jan 5 2013:
You mean like the creation of the Taliban by the Pakistani CIA(with the aid of US CIA) which you can confirm by research if you doubt me? Of course it is a double standard to fight a war on terror by use of terror.

Jan 3 2013:
who shall take a lead to go by example.Certainly,the perpetrators and not the victims.Why do we feel shy of calling a spade a spade especially when the world very well understands who they are.Why don't we give peace a chance in our world?Why living on hegemonic ideas.Why there is arm twisting by some against some.Please think and develop consensus for peace.

Jan 3 2013:
John is right it is about the target, the intention and the state affiliation. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges because you only look at the outcome rather than other factors. You also talk about calling a spade a spade but do not mention who 'they' are, live by your word and peel off the mystery. Who is doing the arm twisting?

Jan 1 2013:
Terrorism is the use of violence or scare tactics by non-state actors to scare other people into accepting political change (because those actors know they cannot obtain their political goals through democracy, negotiations or an appeal to human rights) and it is increasingly associated primarily with attacks on civilian targets. It is not about defense or offense in a traditional sense.

Jan 5 2013:
Terrorism is available to states as well as non state organizations or individuals. Why would Terrorism not apply to an action (say the bombing of a building) just because it was done by a USAF plane instead of a United Airlines one?

Jan 7 2013:
Because the USAF isn't using it to scare a government or a population, it's done to kill the people and equipment inside that building, just like one group of gangster killing another group of gangsters isn't done to scare a government or a population. Now if the US government were to use "gunboat diplomacy" (which they have certainly done in the past) then this might be construed as terrorism though it's just a matter of convention that it's not called terrorism if state actors are doing it. And yes, it's important to remember such conventions because although people say they just want an objective truth they do use words to associate something with something else to make it look more horrible. When you dilute the meaning of the word you also make associating things with that word less damning.

Example: if I dilute the meaning of the word "holocaust" from meaning killing millions of unarmed civilians to also including killing a group of 1000 people, but don't tell people about that and then I go on the news and say some event (say 2000 people killed, but I don't give the number) was a holocaust I'm 1) using cicular reasoning (it's only a holocaust because I changed the definition of that word) and 2) misleading people because I make it seem as though the event killed millions of unarmed civilians (people don't know I changed the definition). If I tell people about me changing the definition then I'm being honest, at the same time I have nothing to gain from associating the event with the holocaust anymore because that term has now become so broad that it's almost meaningless (I can't manipulate people by with that term anymore).

TED Conversations Archives

We’ve spent three years sharing Ideas, Debates and Questions — and learned a lot.

Now we’re going on hiatus to retool and rebuild from the inside out for a better conversation experience.